On 20/05/18 01:41, Tom Lane wrote: > Vik Fearing <vik.fear...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 20/05/18 00:57, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm +1 for backpatching it. It may be operating as designed by PeterE >> ten years ago, but it's not operating as designed by the SQL standard. > > By that argument, *anyplace* where we're missing a SQL-spec feature > is a back-patchable bug. I don't buy it.
Only features we claim to support. I obviously wouldn't consider backpatching ASSERTIONs, for example. > It may be that this fix is simple and safe enough that the risk/reward > tradeoff favors back-patching, but I think you have to argue it as a > favorable tradeoff rather than just saying "this isn't per standard". > Consider: if Andrew had completely rewritten gram.y to get the same > visible effect, would you think that was back-patchable? Is the decision to backpatch based on behavior, or code churn? -- Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36 http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
